Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
. from 1980 until this year when a lame duck session followed a presidential election, every single judicial nominee reported with bipartisan judicial committee support has been confirmed. that's whether it was a republican or democratic president or republican-controlled or democratic-controlled senate. according to the nonpartisan congressional research service, no consensus nominee reported prior to the august recess has ever been denied a vote before now. somehow this president is treated differently than all the other presidents before it. it had been here with president ford, president carter, president reagan, first president bush, president clinton, second president bush, now president obama. none of those other presidents were treated in the way this president is treated. it's something senate democrats have never done in a lame duck session, whether after a presidential or midterm election. in fact, the senate democrats allowed votes on 20 of president george w. bush's judicial nominees, including three circuit court nominees in the lame duck session after the election in
back and that's the solid election victory, where he reason quite explicitly on raising the tax rates on the top 2%. so he know the american people support it. the majority of romney voters on exit polls supported that position. so this is not just dealing with boehner. it's dealing with the american people. and the most important thing is to get a long-term component of the plan and the election results favor him, number 1. number 2 january 1st comes we put a bill on the floor, we quote lower taxes because we couldn't provide tax relief at that point for 98% of americans, and there's no way they would vote against that. >> stephanie: this raising the debt ceiling debacle he said is not a game i'm going to play again. >> we blew it last time. and if you remember the republicans for the first time in the history of the country, literally started playing russian roulette with america's credit, and it was such brinksmanship that we ended up having the markets panic and had the fist downgrade in the history of our country. and that cost billions of dollars to taxpa
. they re-elected the president. the president ran on an agenda of giving a tax break to 98% of the american people, and that opportunity is before us. the senate has worked their will. it's now our opportunity to do that before the holiday season is over. the expression time is fleeting has never been more apropos than it is today. we have very few working days left in this 112th congress to actually act upon what the american people want us to do, and we have even fewer days now that the house republican leadership has reduced the working days this week. we can still get this done, but it's going to take an effort to work, as i said before, as the american people want us to do in a bipartisan way to move forward. and i know that we have the opportunity to really accept the agenda straight today, and with that i'll turn it back to the chair, mr. larson. >> well, thank you, joe, and without further ado let me introduce the individual that's spear heading this effort from the great state of minnesota, tim walz, affectionately known in our caucus as a sergeant major and he's got a sergeant maj
of the child standard misstating an election concert in children with disabilities come in the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration. we all want to support the best interest of the child, every child. but i and my constituents including those who home school their children or send their children to private or religious schools have justifiable doubts that a foreign u.n. body, a committee operating under geneva, switzerland should decide what is in the best interest of the child at home with his or her parents in utah or any other state in our great union. article for this treaty obligates the united states to recognize economic, social and cultural entitlements is rights under domestic u.s. law. the senate is my opinion has not adequately investigated how the standard will affect domestic u.s. federal and state law. we have had one hearing on this issue that included both opponents and opponents of the treaty but did not substantively address my concerns about the standard, about the significant addition to what would become the law of the land of the united states of
that president was in cambodia right after the election. he was in burma. secretary clinton moved widely throughout the region as does secretary panetta. and the amount of activities that i do and my forces do have been a prompt jump in what we've done in the past, and we're looking for opportunities to do more exercise. we're doing more of those things already. i think it's visible to our allies. i think it's visible to our partners. not to be invisible to the region. we also want to jump, where's the next summary our aircraft carrier, that's always the sake of. and we will, over time as you heard secretary panetta said, we will rebalance our navy towards the pacific, and i party mentioned in my opening remarks, we are rapidly moving our most capable assets in the region because of some of the ballistic missile defense will be facing of those types of things. so i think it's not about one thing. it's about a holistic approach, and what if you on the military side is only one aspect of a. it's got to be tied to what's happening in the economic side in what's happening in the diplomatic s
about even out on the campaign trail and the white house believes that, you know, the president was re-elected on that message, so the majority of americans agreed with him, and so this is really a nonstarter for democrats and for the president. they believe that the only way to really pull in revenue here is to go after wealthy americans, majority of americans won't be impacted. he wants those bush era tax cuts extended for middle class americans but believes that those upper income americans need to pay more. republicans though are resisting because they believe that what you're doing here is penalizing the very people who are the job creators, the ones who are sitting on the sidelines and won't invest, and if they have their taxes go up, they'll be impacted, won't be able to put more money into the economy, won't be able to help turn the economy around. so that really is sort of the big sticking point. the white house refusing to budge from it at this point. we'll see where it goes in the next coming days. >> topic two, that is that the president is meeting with the leaders of the national
relationship, i don't think that that kind of thing -- >> what matters is japan does have election on the summer 16th. are they worried about china trying to put together a leader democracy in the region including india because that was his strategy that if you put together things, much more like your when you think, i know you can't in your position talk one way or another about prime minister but this notion about a strategic -- is japan really need to invest in structures that balance -- are you worried that given your experience you have to balance china much more vigorously than you did in the past? >> yes. most frequently you ask question for japanese people is whether we regard china as a threat or a chance for an hour and should is would like to see china development as a chance rather than threat. >> what you think will really happen? >> there is a assumption that china continues to be kind of international stakeholder, stakeholder, international community. international order and they respect the communication with the other countries. on the assumption i think we can wel
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7